Instigator / Con
4
1500
rating
9
debates
33.33%
won
Topic

UNRATED: (Chess) THBT the Queen should be able to move in a L shape as well as its base moves.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
0

With 1 vote and 2 points ahead, the winner is ...

Vidur_Ahuja
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Games
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
6
1482
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description
~ 38 / 5,000

Will declare definitions in 1st round.

Round 1
Con
DEFINITIONS:

Chess: a board game of strategic skill for two players, played on a chequered board on which each playing piece is moved according to precise rules. The object is to put the opponent's king under a direct attack from which escape is impossible (Oxford Languages)
Queen(Chess): the most powerful piece in the game of chess, able to move any number of squares vertically, horizontally or diagonally (Wikipedia)
L shape: two squares vertically and one square horizontally, or two squares horizontally and one square vertically. (Wikipedia)

Arguments:

  • The Queen would become ridiculously overpowered 
This debate states that a Queen would be able to move in an L shape, leading me to assume that a Queen would behave like a knight. Therefore, A Queen could jump over pieces. Giving the queen the knight's movement will completely dominate all other pieces on the board.

This is a very broken feature, seeing as the infamous f2/f7 square, which has always been targeted in the past, will be void. As you can see from a standard Chess board: chess board - Google Search The queen protects that square, leading to an outcry from the public, who view this square as sacred and a part of the game.

  • Classicists
This change would outrage the entire Chess community. Years of theory, practice and memory could be deemed useless. 

  • Irrealism
The Queen's character would need to be redone, with the Queen atop a horse, since the Queen having the capabilities of a Knight means it must be riding a knight.
In History, a Queen has always been unlikely to mount a cavalry and charge into battle. This change will again outrage the community.

  • No need to apply to proper Chess
One very obvious thing is that there are apps which can change the way the game is played. For the small minority that would want to play with the upgraded Queen. On the site Protochess, you can edit your pieces to your heart's content. The title page also literally says:
Are you a chess grandmaster? Or maybe you barely know the rules of chess? Either way, Protochess allows you to customize chess to your heart's content. Create your own boards/pieces using the built-in editor and then play against your friends (or the computer if you don't have friends). Here are some ideas to get you started:
  • A piece that attacks and moves like a knight + queen.
I think this is enough to counter the point. 
Pro
Good afternoon opponent, 
 
Def: Queen: The most powerful piece in the game of chess, able to move any number of squares vertically, horizontally or diagonally (Wikipedia). However, if it was blocked by opponents, or your own, pieces, it can jump over them, and therefor is blocked. 

I start off with saying that since the queen is already overpowered, having a knight's power added to the Queen is going to be helpful with regards to defending and attacking players. Also, that will allow the Queen to jump over pieces, which would allow for more creative attacks, and easier defending. 
 
Regarding the f2/f7 square in chess, the queen will already still be defending, we are just adding more squares under the control of her majesty.  In fact, this is going to help the game improve. More openings will be discovered. With the discovery of the Queen moving in a knight’s order, we could start of the game with 1. Qe3 Qe6
 
I agree that the whole chess community would be disappointed in the change, however, it was the same change that had happened when the king used to be the most powerful piece in the chessboard and the queen could only move one square in all directions 
 
 Also, the queen is not a bishop on top of a rook, it is its own special piece. If the rule does go through (by FIDE), they would not have to change the shape of the queen to make it look like the knight is on top of the queen. That would look ridiculous. 

I finish of by saying that if the Queen was allowed to jump over pieces, chess grandmasters would have more creative attacks, and it would allow for very interesting and engrossing games. 






Round 2
Con
REBUTTALS:

I start off with saying that since the queen is already overpowered, having a knight's power added to the Queen is going to be helpful with regards to defending and attacking players. Also, that will allow the Queen to jump over pieces, which would allow for more creative attacks, and easier defending. 
The Queen is a well-balanced piece relative to the whole Chess board. It can be outmaneuvered with the right skill. Giving the Queen the capabilities of a Knight would destroy this balance and make Queen vs No Queen situations impossible.

Regarding the f2/f7 square in chess, the queen will already still be defending, we are just adding more squares under the control of her majesty.  In fact, this is going to help the game improve. More openings will be discovered. With the discovery of the Queen moving in a knight’s order, we could start of the game with 1. Qe3 Qe6

The f2/f7 square argument has not been addressed properly. My opponent states that "we are just adding more squares under the control of her majesty." However, they did not state how this nullifies my statement of the attacking capabilities being erased.

As for the "new openings", you get 2 new openings. Qe3, Qc3. You're willing to uproot a traditional rule for 2 openings?

I agree that the whole chess community would be disappointed in the change, however, it was the same change that had happened when the king used to be the most powerful piece in the chessboard and the queen could only move one square in all directions 
 
This "change" was brought upon by the rise of powerful queens in Europe. This change was support for feminism and equality. Meanwhile, making the Queen like a Knight has no historical meaning. We don't see Queen Elizabeth riding a horse to fight an army do we?

 Also, the queen is not a bishop on top of a rook, it is its own special piece. If the rule does go through (by FIDE), they would not have to change the shape of the queen to make it look like the knight is on top of the queen. That would look ridiculous. 
I admit that was a dumb argument. I was half-asleep.

I finish of by saying that if the Queen was allowed to jump over pieces, chess grandmasters would have more creative attacks, and it would allow for very interesting and engrossing games. 

I have addressed this.

OVERVIEW:
My opponent has dropped what I think is a very important point:
  • No need to apply to proper Chess
One very obvious thing is that there are apps which can change the way the game is played. For the small minority that would want to play with the upgraded Queen. On the site Protochess, you can edit your pieces to your heart's content. The title page also literally says:
Are you a chess grandmaster? Or maybe you barely know the rules of chess? Either way, Protochess allows you to customize chess to your heart's content. Create your own boards/pieces using the built-in editor and then play against your friends (or the computer if you don't have friends). Here are some ideas to get you started:
  • A piece that attacks and moves like a knight + queen.
If this argument remains unanswered, I argue that wins me the whole debate.\

Good Luck PRO
Pro
Rebuttals for Adrian's points

The Queen is a well-balanced piece relative to the whole Chess board. It can be outmaneuvered with the right skill. Giving the Queen the capabilities of a Knight would destroy this balance and make Queen vs No Queen situations impossible.

I agree, that a Queen vs No Queen situations are going to be impossible, however, we have seen that players high enough rated trade queens for something less worth. Also, if the new rule is permitted, the Queen would now be allowed to cover a whole 5x5 square (if it is not blocked by other pieces). Also, we have all had moments when we couldn't get any pieces to defend the king, as the knight might have been traded. With this rule, it will allow easier defending, which can extend games longer, and even give the defending team a chance to win. WHY WOULDNT YOU WANT AN EASIER CHANCEOF DEFENDING YOUR OWN KING?!
 
Also, losing the queen will be a big loss, however, its just a board game, you are not going to lose a whole war, millions of dollars just for blundering your queen. However, losing a game in a valuable tournament could cost you a place in the podium. So, this is why we should be able to add the movement of a knight to the queen. 
 
As for the "new openings", you get 2 new openings. Qe3, Qc3. You're willing to uproot a traditional rule for 2 openings?

Yes, two new openings will be made with this new rule (which really is not a big deal), however, in closed positions, when there are a lot of pawns and few free squares, your knight is the most powerful piece, as you can transfer it to any square. Also, the knight limits your opponents movement completely. 
 
So, if you were to allow the most POWEFUL piece created by the chess world, to make it even more powerful, YOUWOULD TAKE IT. Especially because, with your knights and queen, your closed positions might not seem to hard to navigate in the end. Already, in open positions, your queen is the most valuable piece, and if it was better to attack in closed positions? It would become even more powerful. 
 
This "change" was brought upon by the rise of powerful queens in Europe. This change was support for feminism and equality. Meanwhile, making the Queen like a Knight has no historical meaning. We don't see Queen Elizabeth riding a horse to fight an army do we?
I agree, that there will be no historical meaning, however, chess is not all historical. We have found better ways to develop it, and this change is going to make life easier for every chess lover. Matches will have more purpose, fighting spirit between the two players, as well as the creative attacks and defending that will attract more people to this wonderful game. 
 
·       No need to apply to proper Chess
One very obvious thing is that there are apps which can change the way the game is played. For the small minority that would want to play with the upgraded Queen. On the site Protochess, you can edit your pieces to your heart's content. The title page also literally says:
Are you a chess grandmaster? Or maybe you barely know the rules of chess? Either way, Protochess allows you to customize chess to your heart's content. Create your own boards/pieces using the built-in editor and then play against your friends (or the computer if you don't have friends). Here are some ideas to get you started:
·       A piece that attacks and moves like a knight +queen.

This point, was not very important, as we are not actually relating to the online games, but rather, to the whole chess community, including over the board chess tournaments. Protochess is just temporary, so there is no enjoyment in having the rules bent for a few games. 
 
As mentioned before, chess grandmasters will have more creative attacks, especially in closed positions, while the defending player will also not have to work so hard in transferring its pieces to the king in order to keep it safe. 

Take a look at this game; white is in serious trouble. After Qf2+ (assuming a1 is the bottom left square), black has one legal move, which is Ke4, and afterwards, black mates the white king in the center of the board with Qf4#. 
Wouldn't it be amazing if the queen, which is stuck on d3, could capture the queen which threatened the white king? Wouldn't it be amazing if you were then in a winning position?

For these reasons, I hope you support my points, and give the votes towards the Proposition side. 
 




Round 3
Con
Significant improvement Vidur. And as a note, you used my real name, so thank you -_-

REBUTTALS:

I agree, that a Queen vs No Queen situations are going to be impossible, however, we have seen that players high enough rated trade queens for something less worth. (1) Also, if the new rule is permitted, the Queen would now be allowed to cover a whole 5x5 square (if it is not blocked by other pieces). Also, we have all had moments when we couldn't get any pieces to defend the king, as the knight might have been traded. With this rule, it will allow easier defending, which can extend games longer, and even give the defending team a chance to win. WHY WOULDNT YOU WANT AN EASIER CHANCEOF DEFENDING YOUR OWN KING?! (2)
1. 
This atrocious grammar I have inferred to mean that players trade Queens often. However, this does not answer my argument at all.

2. 
My argument about the Queen being too overpowered comes into play here. Attacking opportunities would become almost none, and since attacking is a much more important principle than defending, the main goal would become substantially harder, and many new players would quit.

If PRO disagrees that defending is less important than attacking, check this link. There is one comment I would like to quote, by yusuf_prasojo

Kasparov is a very good attacking player, and I am a very good defending player. Of course Kasparov will beat me anytime.
My friend is a very good attacking player, and I am a very good defending player. And I beat my friend most of the time.
The debate between defense and attack is surrounded around the skill level of the player. A good defending player will lose to a great attacking player, and vice versa. So, the difference between them is based upon skill. 
 
Also, losing the queen will be a big loss, however, its just a board game, you are not going to lose a whole war, millions of dollars just for blundering your queen. However, losing a game in a valuable tournament could cost you a place in the podium. So, this is why we should be able to add the movement of a knight to the queen. 

What is ironic is that I know PRO in real life, and he dreams of becoming a professional player. Picture a championship game. The score is 10-10. One more game for the win. You perform a stunning Queen sacrifice, giving way to a combination which lead to checkma-.

Oh right.

The Queen defends that square. 

You'll also find that his argument is contradictory. He says that it's not that bad, because it's just a board game. He then says that this could cost you a place on the podium. He then proceeds to welcome this change.

Yes, two new openings will be made with this new rule (which really is not a big deal), however, in closed positions, when there are a lot of pawns and few free squares, your knight is the most powerful piece, as you can transfer it to any square. Also, the knight limits your opponents movement completely. 
This is a blow to the defender, and solidifies my argument about Queen vs No Queen situations. Before, a skilled player could beat a mediocre one in the situation with a closed position, which they would not be able to penetrate. Now, the gap has been destroyed, and people who blunder their Queen early stand no chance. 

So, if you were to allow the most POWEFUL piece created by the chess world, to make it even more powerful, YOUWOULD TAKE IT. Especially because, with your knights and queen, your closed positions might not seem to hard to navigate in the end. Already, in open positions, your queen is the most valuable piece, and if it was better to attack in closed positions? It would become even more powerful. 
I have been repeating this argument for 2 rounds.

The Queen is a well-balanced piece relative to the whole Chess board. It can be outmaneuvered with the right skill. Giving the Queen the capabilities of a Knight would destroy this balance
  • The Queen would become ridiculously overpowered 
This debate states that a Queen would be able to move in an L shape, leading me to assume that a Queen would behave like a knight. Therefore, A Queen could jump over pieces. Giving the queen the knight's movement will completely dominate all other pieces on the board.



This is a very broken feature, seeing as the infamous f2/f7 square, which has always been targeted in the past, will be void. As you can see from a standard Chess board: chess board - Google Search The queen protects that square, leading to an outcry from the public, who view this square as sacred and a part of the game.


I agree, that there will be no historical meaning, however, chess is not all historical. We have found better ways to develop it, and this change is going to make life easier for every chess lover. Matches will have more purpose, fighting spirit between the two players, as well as the creative attacks and defending that will attract more people to this wonderful game. 
What PRO is proposing is a unreasonable change of the most important piece in Chess for no reason and to support a small minority of players who like overpowered queens? That is highly illogical and I hope it is seen as such by voters.

This point, was not very important, as we are not actually relating to the online games, but rather, to the whole chess community, including over the board chess tournaments. Protochess is just temporary, so there is no enjoyment in having the rules bent for a few games. 
You're going to uproot all of traditional chess for a small minority? If you want to play like that, tell your opponent, don't destroy centuries of tradition. 

As mentioned before, chess grandmasters will have more creative attacks, especially in closed positions, while the defending player will also not have to work so hard in transferring its pieces to the king in order to keep it safe.

I find it laughable that you think all chess grandmasters would agree to this idea. Many would either quit or protest for the return of traditional chess. Even if they do agree to the change, they would have to spend hours reviewing theory and changing the whole game. And another thing. This would destroy some very well known book openings, most notably the Italian Game which focuses solely on f2 and f7. 

Take a look at this game; white is in serious trouble. After Qf2+ (assuming a1 is the bottom left square), black has one legal move, which is Ke4, and afterwards, black mates the white king in the center of the board with Qf4#. 
Wouldn't it be amazing if the queen, which is stuck on d3, could capture the queen which threatened the white king? Wouldn't it be amazing if you were then in a winning position?
Wouldn't it be amazing, to be screamed at by a stranger, who forgot about the new rules, losing a well deserved checkmate?

CONCLUSION

  • A Upgraded Queen is Overpowered
  • There is no reason to uproot chess for a small minority
  • Theory is useless now.
  • Grandmasters would most likely quit or be forced to study theory AGAIN
I urge voters to understand this and see the flaws in Vidur's argument. 

VOTE CON

Pro
Forfeited